Periodic Locking and Topic Retention in Long Dialogues Between Two Small Language Model Agents
Keywords:
small language models, two-agent dialogue, periodic repetition, topic retention, generation degeneration, paired interventionsAbstract
Objective: To examine the joint evolution of textual repetition, retention of opening-topic information, and generation costs in long dialogues between two agents using a small language model with fixed weights and no external task feedback, and to test the effects of simple prompts and branching interventions on repetitive states. Methods: Qwen3.5-0.8B generated alternating dialogues under five fictional Chinese opening scenarios and two system-prompt conditions. The analysis included 621 complete conversations of 200 messages each, totaling 124,200 messages; 620 conversations formed 310 matched pairs. Trajectories were characterized using exact-text periodicity, character-bigram similarity, lexical novelty, Chinese semantic embeddings, grouped cross-validation, and paired resampling. Ten frozen history prefixes were also continued under five conditions and two new seeds, yielding 100 branches and 1,200 additional messages. Results: The final 40 messages of 610 conversations (98.23%) exhibited a strict exact-text period of at most 10 messages; periods 1 and 2 accounted for 299 and 280 conversations, respectively. Same-speaker exact repetition reached 94.60% in the final 20 messages, while opening-category decoding accuracy remained 71.82% using the final two messages. Adding a topic-anchoring instruction produced a paired difference of 1.13 percentage points in overall same-speaker repetition, with a 95% confidence interval of −2.21 to 4.49 percentage points under replicate-block resampling. Logistic regression using features from the first 20 messages achieved an AUC of 0.720 for predicting confirmation of near-repetition at or before message 80; more complex models showed no consistent advantage. A stopping rule requiring 20 consecutive near-repetitions would retrospectively have avoided 63.57% of messages and 85.77% of recorded generation time. In the branch experiment, the text-change fraction across all 12 continuation messages was 7.50% under the recommended sampling configuration and zero under the original configuration and the other three interventions. The exact cluster test yielded p=0.25 and the Benjamini–Hochberg-adjusted q value for the primary comparisons was 1.00; sustained change across the final six messages occurred in only 1/20 branches under the recommended configuration. Conclusions: Under the model, opening scenarios, template protocol, and sampling settings examined here, periodic locking can coexist with retention of opening-topic information. Evaluation of long dialogues should separately measure structural repetition, topic identifiability, and informational usefulness, while using controlled interventions to test the mutability of repetitive states.
References
[1] Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, et al. The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09751
[2] Sean Welleck, Ilia Kulikov, Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, et al. Neural Text Generation with Unlikelihood Training. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.04319
[3] Jin Xu, Xiaojiang Liu, Jianhao Yan, Deng Cai, et al. Learning to Break the Loop: Analyzing and Mitigating Repetitions for Neural Text Generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022, 35. DOI: 10.52202/068431-0223. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/hash/148c0aeea1c5da82f4fa86a09d4190da-Abstract-Conference.html
[4] Ting-Wen Ko, Jonas Geiping. Attractor States Emerge in Multi-Turn LLM Conversations. arXiv preprint, 2026. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.30571. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.30571
[5] Tatsuya Hiraoka, Kentaro Inui. Repetition Neurons: How Do Language Models Produce Repetitions? Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 2: Short Papers), 2025: 483–495. DOI: 10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-short.41. https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-short.41/
[6] Qwen Team. Qwen3.5-0.8B model card. Hugging Face model repository, 2026. https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.5-0.8B/blob/2fc06364715b967f1860aea9cf38778875588b17/README.md (Accessed: 2026-10-08)
[7] Shitao Xiao, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Niklas Muennighoff, et al. C-Pack: Packed Resources For General Chinese Embeddings. Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2024: 641–649. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07597
[8] Yoav Benjamini, Yosef Hochberg. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 1995, 57(1): 289–300. DOI: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x. https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
[9] Bradley Efron. Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 1979, 7(1): 1–26. DOI: 10.1214/aos/1176344552. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/annals-of-statistics/volume-7/issue-1/Bootstrap-Methods-Another-Look-at-the-Jackknife/10.1214/aos/1176344552.full
[10] David R. Roberts, Volker Bahn, Simone Ciuti, Mark S. Boyce, et al. Cross-validation strategies for data with temporal, spatial, hierarchical, or phylogenetic structure. Ecography, 2017, 40(8): 913–929. DOI: 10.1111/ecog.02881. https://nsojournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.02881
[11] Peter J. Rousseeuw. Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 1987, 20: 53–65. DOI: 10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7
[12] Lawrence Hubert, Phipps Arabie. Comparing partitions. Journal of Classification, 1985, 2: 193–218. DOI: 10.1007/BF01908075. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01908075
[13] Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2011, 12(85): 2825–2830. https://www.jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html
[14] Philippe Laban, Hiroaki Hayashi, Yingbo Zhou, Jennifer Neville. LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06120
[15] UK Parliament. Magna Carta. UK Parliament, n.d. https://www.parliament.uk/magnacarta/ (Accessed: 2026-10-08)
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jiexiao Zhang

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant Discovery permission to publish their work as the original journal of publication. Accepted articles are made freely available under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC 4.0).
The license permits non-commercial sharing and adaptation with appropriate attribution, a license link and identification of changes. Reuse beyond the license requires permission unless otherwise permitted by law. Follow any separate license or credit line for third-party material. Read the open access, copyright and fees policy for details.